"His pension, his practice and his writing, combined with a modest capital,
seem to comprise the financial framework of Watson's life. Apparently they
permitted him considerable latitude, and no serious crises intervened to
drain his resources."

Watson was in need of money to support his wife Mary Morstan, and two
of his best stories could not be published because the women involved were
still living. He therefore may have been responsible for the deaths of
both Irene Adler and Helen Stoner.

In all probability Holmes and Watson were business partners from May
1894 to September 1902. Watson derived substantial sums from his collaboration
with the detective and from the sale of his practice to Verner, who bought
it at Holmes's suggestion and with Holmes's money.

Correspondence from Robert Moriarty (Clerk at the Office of the Income
Tax Commission), Watson, Sherlock Holmes, James Moriarty, and Conan Doyle
concerning Watson's unpaid income taxes on alleged royalties from the sale
of his publications about Sherlock Holmes.

A letter dated April 1, 1898, from Dr. Flinders Petrie of Fu-Manchu
fame criticizing his predecessor, Dr. Watson, for letting his practice
deteriorate in order to keep company with a strange detective.

C9661. -- A3402. Pennell, Vernon. "A Resumé of
the Medical Life of John H. Watson, M. D., Late of the Army Medical Department,
with an Appendix of the London University Regulations for Medical Degrees
for the Year 1875," SHJ, 3, No. 2 (Winter 1956), 6-11.

"We may think of the faithful Dr. Watson answering a call, perhaps late
at night, his stethoscope concealed in his hat, and his trusty medical
bag filled with the acceptable drugs. We can picture him further, riding
along in his hansom--the lights of which shine dimly through the fog--rattling
over the cobblestones of the old London streets, carrying on the tradition
of his noble profession."

For those who have long wondered as to John H. Watson's true profession,
the author of the Schlock Homes parodies offers strangely convincing evidence
that Watson, despite all previous theories, was, in reality, a medical
man!

"His choice of ether as a `do or die' means to save the life of Lady
Frances (fully realizing that ether may further potentiate the toxic pharmacological
action of chloroform), shows a side of him that has not been presented
to the reader in any previous adventure -- that of a quick-witted and highly
competent physician who deserves greater acclaim."

When Watson twice said he had "returned to civil practice" (Scan and
Engr), he was not implying that he had been in civil practice before. He
was saying that he had returned to the practice of medicine, this time
civil. The emphasis is not on "returned," but on "civil." In addition to
explaining his puzzling "returned" comments, this simpler solution has
another advantage. It brings us back into the Canon for our answers (where
we should be).

In order to have received the M.D. degree from the University of London,
Watson must have submitted a doctoral thesis. His familiarity with diseases
of the nervous system and avid interest in pathology suggests that he was
one of the early students of neuropathology, and probably wrote his dissertation
on that aspect of medicine.

In a detailed and intriguing description of Jack Ferguson's spinal problem
(Suss), Watson suggests that the boy was suffering from diastematomyelia,
a rare neurologic disorder. Watson must have been involved in advanced
neuropathologic research in order to have made this sophisticated diagnosis.

Watson's wound at Maiwand damaged the brachial plexus, causing him to
lose some fine motor control in his left hand. As a result, in spite of
his prior surgical training, he was unable to perform surgery during his
subsequent medical career.

The author suggests that Watson spent World War I serving in the army,
performing pre-induction physicals. He would have been quite expert at
identifying malingerers who were attempting to evade the military service.
Watson had the opportunity in Dyin to learn firsthand about malingering
from Holmes, one of the first students of the subject.

Why did Holmes not consult Watson when he needed a doctor? Several instances
make clear that he looked elsewhere when he needed medical assistance;
friendship had replaced the doctor-patient relationship.

C9676. Skornickel, George R., Jr. "The Doctor Is Out at the Moment,"
SP, 2, No. 3 (April 1980), 12-13.

An examination of Watson's three practices, from 1888 to 1902, suggests
that he intentionally purchased practices that were slack to enable him
to accompany Holmes at will.

"Watson's medical background is poor. His knowledge of first aid, optometry,
surgery, diseases, heart conditions, poisons, sedatives and spinal injuries
is nil. His ability to help his friend as well as his patients was lacking.
It is no wonder that Watson could leave his practice at a minute's notice.
His patients used the old saying, `Don't call us, we'll call you.'"

The facts of Watson's medical studies are recounted and the paucity
of training in practical pharmacology is noted. The history of alcoholic
beverages from earliest times is given and the use of wine and brandy as
a prescribed medicine is described. Also described are the many cases where
Watson and even Holmes (undoubtedly as a result of Watson's tutelage) gave
brandy, even pouring it down the throat of an unconscious person.

An argument against John Dickson Carr's conclusion (Life of Sir Arthur
Conan Doyle, p. 46) that Dr. James Watson was the original of John
H. Watson. The honor was more likely bestowed upon another of Doyle's
contemporaries--Patrick
Heron Watson.

Attention is called to the career of a medical officer in the British
Army who conceivably could have been the original of Dr. Watson. The salient
facts supporting this theory are that Alexander Francis Preston participated
in the Afghan Campaign of 1878-80 and was twice wounded with at least one
(and possibly both) of the wounds being received in the Battle of Maiwand
while serving with the Berkshire Regiment.

This article is a continuation of the Watson-Preston prototype theory
based upon new evidence taken from a narrative written in 1880 by Preston
regarding his participation in the Battle of Maiwand. The narrative strongly
suggests that he received more than one wound in the battle. In addition,
it describes his rescue from the Ghazi hordes, a rescue that is somewhat
reminiscent of the one related by Watson in Stud.

Acknowledging the possibility that the "real" Watson stems from a composite
rather than from a single prototype, the author discusses the likelihood
that Doyle could just as well have used the surname of Dr. James Watson
as that of Redmond's candidate, Surgeon George Watson (DA3350).
The claim that Surgeon-Major Alexander Preston was not Watsonian in appearance
is also defended.

An editorial on Mende's theory that Alexander Francis Preston (No. 6081
in Drew's Roll) may have been the original of Watson.

C9688. "`Dr. Watson' Lives; Is Artist in Chicago," The New
York Times (July 2, 1932).

Painter Dr. William Henry Watson, who was a college chum of Doyle's
at Edinburgh University, tells how Doyle first conceived the idea for his
Sherlock Holmes stories and how he then used his friend's name for Holmes's
companion. "Conan always called me Dr. Watson."

Further information and speculation about Dr. Patrick Heron Watson of
Edinburgh University, who, according to Jay Finley Christ (DA3313,
DB1558) may well have been the model for Dr. John H. Watson. Also
noted is the interesting fact that Patrick Watson and Joseph Bell, the
man who was Doyle's inspiration for Holmes, were friends and professional
associates for many years.

"Since Watson's name was indisputably John, why should his wife refer
to him as `James'? In reason and in logic, this could only have been the
Freudian inadvertence ascribable to there once having been a James."

"Watson was married five times: to Constance Adams in 1884 or 1885,
to a Miss X, with both a mother and aunt in 1886, to the mother-less and
aunt-less Mary Morstan in 1888 or 1889, to a Miss Y in 1896 and to a Miss
Z in 1902."

An excellent article on the wedded life of John and Mary Watson in which
the author discusses Watson's early life and talents, his first meeting
with Mary, the date of their marriage, the wedding, their married life,
and Mary's illness and death.

"Mary Morstan did not cast off her husband [as first suggested by H.
W. Starr (DA3431)]; she fought courageously--and with the Doctor's
self-sacrificing help--against the inroads of insanity. Again and again
his love and medical skill pulled her back from the shadows of the asylum:
to her he gave the closing years of his life, attending her in seclusion,
saving her from the final horror of institutional care."

"When Sherlock Holmes made the statement to John Openshaw that he had
been beaten once by a woman, most observers believed that he was speaking
of Miss Irene Adler. There can be no doubt that Holmes had in mind the
woman who took Watson away from him. However, as cunning and as resourceful
as Mary Watson was, it took her sixteen years to beat him decisively."

Winner of the 2nd annual Morley-Montgomery Award for the best contribution
to BSJ in 1959.

"Is it not perhaps less extravagant to suppose a trifling lapsus
calami on the part of a man like Watson, who in so many instances has
been proved guilty of similar inaccuracies, than to drag in a wholly hypothetical
marriage, unrecorded, and lasting less than twelve months, with the sole
purpose of explaining Watson's temporary absence from Baker Street?"

"Who, then, was James? If Elmer Davis could evoke a daughter
of Mrs. Forrester to provide a third wife for Watson, may we not suggest
that there was a Forrester son? ... it was James Forrester,
then, and not James Watson, of whom his mother spoke. In the light of this,
the problem of `John or James' vanishes."

A close examination of Holmes's telling remark to Watson reveals that
"the Casanova of many nations and three continents" did not marry a second
time, as many commentators believe, but, instead, was having an affaire
with a married woman!

"Mary Watson, tired of her husband's disinterest, his frequent journeys
with Holmes, and his admitted visits to the widow Norton, divorced Watson
in 1901 and, in the summer of 1902, Watson took Irene as his lawful wife,
much to the chagrin of Sherlock Holmes who was fond of Mary and still rather
irked by Watson's betrayal of their friendship."

Mary Morstan Watson, in referring to her husband as "James," had committed
a slip of the tongue and was really thinking of James Moriarty. The professor,
perhaps Mary's lover, foisted her upon Watson so that she could spy on
Holmes.

This article proves, conclusively, that Watson never married Mary Morstan.
In pursuing Jonathan Small across the Thames, Watson was struck by Tonga's
drug-tipped dart. Piercing his earlobe, it induced a rare form of brain
fever known as "delusional divorce syndrome." This condition temporarily
afflicts married men, causing them to be granted a sense of freedom and
suffering from the delusion that they are free to marry again.

After recovering from the disease, Watson perpetuated the unintentional
hoax in subsequent stories by referring to his "wife," but never mentioning
her by name.

"Mary Morstan was a spy for Moriarty, a feminine Porlock, working not
for Holmes but against him. Second only to Holmes in Canonical histrionic
ability, Mary successfully beguiled Watson from the time of their meeting
to the time of her death -- and, with the connivance of Holmes and certain
Scotland Yard associates, forever after."

An utterly delightful, humorous, and refreshing examination of the problems
of Watson's marital history. The author, in the person of Whitsend, calls
on Lomax, a computer expert at the British Museum, to help him find out
how many women Watson wed.

There is evidence to suggest that Watson was married three, not five
times as thought by Baring-Gould. He was married to Constance Adams between
November 1886 and December 1887 (Angels of Darkness), to Mary Morstan
between 1889 and 1892 (Sign), and to an unnamed woman from October 1902
to his death.

Watson married Constance Adams, a 27 year old from Marietta, Ohio, who
was visiting relatives in San Francisco where Watson maintained a practice
between January 1884 and August 1886. The Watsons separated and were divorced
by late summer in 1884. Their as yet unborn son was Charles John Watson,
better known as "Doc" Watson (January 30, 1885-December 30, 1949), who
grew up to become a major league pitcher.

The author examines the problems of reconstructing Sherlockian chronology
while depending upon Watson's truthfulness regarding his marriage(s). Maintaining
the only evidence admissible is that which can be confirmed from two independent
sources, it is demonstrated that only the dates of publication of the stories
may be relied upon completely. Noting that Watson was at first a struggling
author in a hopelessly romantic era, it is postulated that the marriage
in Sign was a fiction added to sell the story to a reluctant publisher.
This was a fiction Watson was forced to retain, leading to all manner of
anomaly in subsequent stories. Watson's marriage therefore cannot be relied
upon as a criterion for establishing the absolute chronology of the Canon.

The woman who came to see Holmes was not Mary Morstan; she was the daughter
of Mrs. Cecil Forrester. Holmes knew who she was, since he had dealt with
her mother some time before, but could not bring himself to tell the love-smitten
Watson.

C9745. Mortimore, Roger. "Rex vs. Watson," BSN, 1, No.
1 (1984), 1-2.

Justice Dingleberry sums up the case against Watson, who is accused
of murdering his wife, Mary Morstan.

An excellent discussion of Watson's mastery of characterization, with
examples, and the books he must have consulted to assist him in his descriptions
of people. Holmes's traits are also described and enumerated.

The many discrepancies in Sign and Scan have convinced the author that
these two tales are spurious episodes--the first having been written by
some unknown journalist and the second by Mrs. Hudson--and are not part
of the "genuine Saga" as recorded by Watson.

"An attempt to introduce a probable argument showing that the position
of Sherlockian scholars regarding the authenticity of the tales and the
authorship of John H. Watson is not only reasonable, but eminently tenable."

"It can only be that the needy Watson, equipped with battered tin dispatch-box,
sought out once more his astute editor and fiscal alchemist, and it was
decided that Holmes should resume business at the same old stand--dealing
in updated cases--with Conan Doyle fabricating the story of his rebirth."

The author takes exception to those scholars who maintain that the Case
Book contains only apocryphal stories, and explains why he thinks they
are "all well-written and thrilling narratives" and "that some are equal
to the best of the others, in varying degrees."

Watson is not a "bumbling boob" but only seems to be because of his
gallant effort to confuse fact with fiction in order to deceive Moriarty.
(If the Professor is still alive, as some writers maintain, then Sherlockians
could be doing Holmes a great disservice in their endless attempts to correct
Watson's intentional errors and misstatements!)

"It seems that we must enlarge our roster of those who contributed to
the Canon from the four who have until now held that high distinction [Watson,
Holmes, Mycroft, and Doyle] to a considerably greater number. They all
did their best -- the Pinkertons and the Armitages and the Fergusons and
the rest -- and what they did was sometimes good."

A number of inconsistencies in certain of the tales are cited to show
that such errors came from the pen of Doyle who, in addition to acting
as Watson's literary agent, collaborated with him whenever Watson's practice
made it necessary for him to devote more time to his patients and less
to his chronicles.

"Correlative speculations plus disjecta membra; being a prologomonous
disquisition on the authenticity of certain prefatory passages in the Sacred
Writings." (Subtitle)

In the tales included in the Adventures and Memoirs, there are numerous
references to other published cases of the Canon. This practice becomes
greatly reduced, however, in the cases that appeared in print following
Holmes's return from the Reichenbach. Speculations are presented attributing
this phenomenon to the pen of Doyle, either as an attempt to enhance his
own literary reputation or because he felt Watson's narratives needed a
few extra trimmings.

Gives Holmes's opinion, often in his own words, of Watson's literary
endeavours, which were too sensational for Holmes. The detective believed
that they should deal only with his analytical and ratiocinative talents.
The article condemns neither Watson for his frequent and oft-cited inaccuracies,
nor Holmes for his criticisms. It treats both the Master and his Boswell
fairly, and points out that, in at least one instance, Holmes lashed out
at Watson when not in the best of moods, and often made up for his criticisms
with small compliments. The article is based solely on the Canon, not the
writings about the Writings or personal conjecture.

This far from trifling monograph utilizes Watson's newly-discovered
non-Sacred Writings to suggest how, in actuality, he was Sherlock's resident
physician, or alienist, at 221b, as well as to outline the notable independent
career Watson was able to build after escaping from Holmes's destructive
influence.

Watson stopped writing the adventures of Sherlock Holmes after April
1927 because of poor health and because his notes, which had been turned
over to his literary agent, were destroyed by thieves soon after the agent's
death.

How reliable are the notes that Watson kept in his journal? Could delays
in making the journal entries be responsible for the errors that populate
his published accounts? The author draws parallels with James Boswell's
journals to show that Watson might have waited hours or even days to record
the events that became the heart of the Canon.

Responding to a previous paper claiming Holmes's co-authorship of the
Canon to be axiomatic (DB2390), the current essay cites internal
evidence demonstrating the falsity of such an assumption; and further internal
evidence indicating that there might be some validity after all. Conclusion:
too rigid an interpretation is inappropriate.

C9796. Caplan, Richard M. "The Circumstance of the Missing Biographer,
or Why Watson Didn't Narrate These Four Sherlock Holmes Stories," Journal
of the American Academy of Dermatology, 6 (1982), 1112-1114.

Dr. Caplan provides arguments to explain why Maza, Last, Blan, and Lion
were not written by Watson. The arguments relate to logical demands of
the plot in the cases of the two stories told by an unidentified narrator.
The two told by Holmes seem to demand Watson's absence because the final
elucidation requires skill in cutaneous diagnosis; the presence of a medical
man would have, or should have, relieved the dramatic tension of the mystery
too soon.

John H. Watson was many things, but to Sherlockians he was first and
foremost a writer. Without his writings we would never know of the exploits
of Sherlock Holmes. His severest critic was the detective himself, who
belittled his colleague's work on many occasions. As time passed, Holmes's
criticism mellowed and he finally stated, "I suppose, Watson, we must look
upon you as a man of letters." Indeed we must, as we must look upon Holmes
as his harshest critic.

Although it is plain that the life and career of Holmes found their
ultimate fulfilment in the destruction of Moriarty, did Watson's life ever
reach such a point of satisfaction? Watson's accomplishments in the areas
of offspring, medicine, and writing are explored in the hope of finding
an answer.

A well-reasoned article refuting claims that Doyle, not Watson, was
the author of the Canonical tales. Except for the covers (and title pages),
none of them contain Doyle's name. And "You can't judge a book by its cover."

The author suggests two theses: 1. Watson was in error in his list of
Sherlock Holmes's Limitations; 2. Holmes did, in fact, die at Reichenbach,
and Watson created all of the subsequent adventures in order to supplement
his income.

"This paper is an attempt to identify the controversial figure who wrote
`His Last Bow,' which, unlike other Canonical stories, is narrated in the
third person. Through the method of statistical stylistics, `His Last Bow'
and some other Canonical and non-Canonical writings are analyzed with the
aid of computers."

"Watson as the uncomprehending narrator is essential to the stories.
While the reader does not want to find out the truth too soon, he wants
to be assured -- as Holmes assures him -- that he will know it in the end.
Since Watson can make nothing of the facts in a case, he has to transfer
his scrutiny to Holmes, who thus becomes both enigma and soothsayer, producing
tricks and conundrums to keep Watson and the reader amused until the solution
is revealed. Holmes sets out to impress the reader, like his clients, `with
a sense of power.' It is for this reason that the interest of the stories
is not exhausted by the disclosure of the criminal."

A certain logic has led scholars to conclude that Christopher Morley
actually wrote all the plays which long were attributed to William Shakespeare.
Further application of this very same logic now has led to the inevitable
conclusion that none other than Dr. John H. Watson was the true author
of the plays hitherto ascribed to the late George Bernard Shaw! Various
illustrations, implications and ramifications of this remarkable discovery
are disclosed, described and discussed.

An examination of Watson's writings reveals that he had some serious
shortcomings as a diarist. "... it is one of those tragedies of Western
History that all our knowledge of the life and work of Sherlock Holmes
comes to us by way of so inaccurate a reporter. However, let us remember
that, if it were not for Watson, many -- perhaps most -- of us might never
have heard of Holmes at all. So let us be grateful for what Watson gave
us, and let us in Australia be proud of having nurtured his early childhood;
and, of course, of having provided him with one-third of his experience
of women."